Gordon Brown: The answer is £215 billion. In the Budget, I froze duty until at least 1 September. I also announced a renewable transport fuel obligation with a higher 35p differential for biofuels; an environmentally-based payment system for vehicle excise duty, ranging from zero to £210; and progress on introducing sulphur-free diesel.

George Osborne: Was the junior Education Minister, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell) speaking for the Government when he said that people are now taxed to the limit?

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the mechanism for making the renewable transport fuel obligation escalator work, particularly the 15p per litre buy-ups measure and the continuation of the 20p discount on tax. Will he ensure that there is a mechanism to monitor the introduction of those processes to ensure that the necessary investment goes into the plant for producing bioethanol and biodiesel in the UK?

Siobhain McDonagh: At the last election, I made five personal pledges to my constituents. All those pledges appeared in my election literature, and one of them was to turn two schools in the east of my constituency—Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor—into academies. Both schools have been completely rebuilt since 1997, and they have some of the best facilities anywhere in the country, but while other schools in Merton are improving fast, they are both still in the bottom few per cent. of the country's schools for GCSE results and for the value that they add to pupils' education. In Mitcham Vale, nine out of 10 boys still fail to get five good GCSEs.
	Local people are well aware that those schools are poor. They both have space for 1,200 pupils, but they are barely half full. Every year, I see dozens of parents in my surgery, many in tears, because they have been told that the schools that they want are full and that their children must go to either Mitcham Vale or Tamworth Manor. So, on the doorstep, the reaction to the suggestion of creating academies was very positive, as residents are fed up with bad behaviour and low results. They want to see schools with a new ethos, strong discipline and good results. So my pledges went down well at the ballot box. Although Mitcham and Morden was Conservative until 1997, Labour's majority is now more than 30 per cent.
	I am pleased to say that Merton's Labour council shares my belief that academies, with new sixth forms to attract ambitious students, could take both schools out of the doldrums. The council is working hard to get the new academies opened in September this year—a very tight timetable. Like me, it is concerned that any delay could make the schools unsustainable.
	At this point, I should stress that we have had great support from the Department for Education and Skills and, in particular, Lord Adonis. In fact, I cannot praise my noble Friend enough. In my nine years as an MP, I have witnessed some truly excellent Ministers, but he has always been available for advice and support, and he has been the most helpful of all. I hope that that can be put on the record.
	With the support of the DFES, we were able to find two excellent sponsors for our academies. One of them was the Church of England, which has been involved in education for centuries. That sponsor would appeal to many of my constituents who want a local faith-based school. We have a very large African population in Mitcham, and a school based on Christian values, morality and good behaviour will appeal to many parents.
	The other sponsor was Lord Harris of Peckham, whom hon. Members perhaps best know of as a close ally of the new Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). The general public may know of him as the millionaire owner of Carpetright, but in south London, he is also known as a sponsor of several successful schools. His Croydon city technology college started in 1990, with 57 first-choice applications and only 13 per cent. of pupils getting five A to C GCSEs. Now the figures are about 3,000, and 91 per cent. respectively. Bacon's technical college's results have gone from 14 to 72 per cent., and the academy in Peckham now has a sixth form of 130 students, where previously there was none. Independent data puts Harris schools in the top 6 per cent. in England. I may not agree with the noble lord's politics, but even I have to admire his personal commitment and drive to educate children who often find things tough in south London.
	Both sponsors would give their schools an immediate change of ethos, which is just what they need if they are to attract students, improve results and, in the end, stay open. The wonderful new facilities at those schools were built using the private finance initiative, so there were still significant financial and legal issues to overcome, but I am pleased to say that they have been sorted out, thanks to hard work by those in the DFES and Merton council. That takes us to the consultation stage.
	Earlier this year, there were three public meetings, attended by more than 500 people. A questionnaire was sent to all local parents and another was put on Merton's website. I, too, ran a survey of residents in the neighbourhoods around the schools. There was a well-organised campaign against academies, led by unions, governors and retired teachers, who, for perfectly honourable reasons, believe that religions and business men should not be involved in our schools. Those who ran the consultation went a long way to ensure that those voices were heard. Indeed, some people complained that the eight or nine people behind the campaign against academies all got to speak at length at the meetings, drowning out the voice of ordinary parents, but at least they had a chance to air their concerns and to have their questions answered. For instance, it was made clear that the schools would be charitable trusts. The new sponsors could not profit from them or sell their assets. If for any reason a school closed, its land would revert to the ownership of the local authority. It was also made clear that there would be no selection by ability.
	The result of the consultation was a clear majority in favour of the proposals, by about two to one. Sadly, there were only about 700 responses—three quarters of them as a result of my survey—but it is fair to say that that whole process showed no widespread opposition to the plans. Next was the simple matter of getting Merton council's overview and scrutiny panel to agree. Labour does not have a majority on that committee, even though Merton is a Labour council, so this was obviously a concern.
	Back in September, however, a rising political star made an amazing statement. He said:
	"There are times in this quite new politics we have when Tony Blair sits in the middle of the British political spectrum . . . Tuition fees. Foundation hospitals. City academies. When he does these things, I want a Conservative Party that says yes, that is a good idea . . . Not one that seeks a way of opposing him and just looks opportunistic and insincere."
	That speaker was the right hon. Member for Witney. So, there was no way that Merton's Conservatives would now oppose city academies or behave in a way that was opportunistic and insincere, or was there? Well, while the Leader of the Opposition in the country was telling us that he wanted to speed up the creation of city academies, the Conservative party in Merton decided to slow it down. In November, it brought a motion to Merton council
	"to advise Cabinet to reconsider its decision regarding . . . Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor and to postpone it until January 2007".
	When it lost that motion, it put out leaflets that said:
	"Labour Councillors voted to hand"
	the schools
	"over to private sponsors—give away millions of pounds of Council taxpayers money . . . .The Labour Government shower the sponsors with Knighthoods and peerages."
	Merton's Conservatives seemed not to notice that the only peer involved in the Merton academies was a Tory and an ally of their leader, or that he would be investing his own money in the schools, not receiving money from Merton council tax payers. But, of course, when the crunch came at the overview and scrutiny meeting, surely they would follow their leader and back academies? Well, there might be a new face at the top, but on the ground, they are still the same old Tories, and yes, they are opportunistic and insincere, because, along with a handful of unelected so-called representatives, they voted to ignore the public and reject academies.
	Thankfully, there was still time to hold an emergency Cabinet meeting, where the proposals were put back on timetable. However, there are still other hurdles to be crossed if the schools are to become academies in September. There are still more meetings to come. I am raising the issue today to draw attention to the damage being done by local politicians who are opportunistic and insincere—politicians who deliberately defy their leader and when he says "flip" they say "flop"; politicians who would rather put their personal agendas ahead of the future of thousands of children. Our children get only one chance. Funding in Merton's schools is up by more than £1,300 per pupil since 1997. Results have gone up at all key stages and many of our schools, including Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor, have been rebuilt.
	Sadly, however, the fact is that some schools need extra help. I believe that academies are one answer. My constituents agree with me. My local council agrees with me. Even the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me. I hope that, as a result of this Adjournment debate, we can persuade Merton's Conservatives to agree with all of us, to stop behaving so irresponsibly, and to start putting our children first.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman's last point was absolutely accurate. He knows that I share his view, because I have been arguing about the matter for several years. Labour Members sometimes experience self-delusion. They believe their rhetoric and think that the Government are performing better on some areas than the previous Conservative Government, although they are not. I was no supporter of the Conservative Government—I thought it was disastrous.
	The problem hugely affects vulnerable people. I referred to housing during business questions, and that is a similar such problem. Some 1.5 million people are waiting for a council house—500,000 more than under the Conservatives. The number of homeless people has doubled and the Government are building half as much affordable social housing as the Conservatives did in their last year in government. That does not sound to me like a Labour Government—it certainly does not sound like a socialist Government.

Michael Wills: I shall be fairly brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a plea to Ministers to implement as rapidly as possible some of the recommendations in the recent health White Paper, particularly in relation to integrating care services. In my constituency I have a special interest in seeing the integration of Swindon social services, run by the borough council, with Swindon primary care trust.
	Since its inception in 1997 Swindon social services department has had a long and troubled history. It inherited from Wiltshire county council a deficit of £1 million, and it has never been able to get out from under that burden. That has nothing to do with the quality of the social workers involved, who are all, in my experience, public- spirited public servants who work extremely hard to try to deliver services to their clients. The Government have recognised the considerable problems with Swindon social services over the years, and there has been Government intervention.
	Thanks to £1 million from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the borough council was able to bring in consultancy services from Kent county council, one of the better social services departments in the country. Under its tutelage and with a great deal of engagement by the borough council, there have been real improvements in Swindon social services. I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved, particularly to the social workers on the front line, who have a difficult and often thankless job. I know from my own experience how hard they work and how deeply they care about the people they serve, and I pay tribute to them.
	There are, however, still huge problems with social services. We cannot run away from them. Every week I see examples in my caseload. Recently, I had a case of a young woman with pronounced suicidal tendencies who had been made known to Swindon social services over many months. She had not had a proper assessment and she was getting no support. One afternoon recently she threatened to commit suicide. Her mother was desperate. She rang social services, but she could get no one to come out.
	In the end, the situation was so desperate that the police had to go to the house and spend six to eight hours with the young woman to ensure that she did not harm herself. All the time the police were there doing that job—I pay tribute to them in this case—I was on the phone, trying to get social services to engage with the case. Having spent most of the day on it, it was only at about 6.30 pm that we got a duty officer to come out and take charge. That was an extreme case, but there are other cases that I see every week, showing how far social services have to go.
	On the other hand, Swindon primary care trust is widely recognised to be one of the best in the country. It is an exceptional team led by Jan Stubbings, with high quality management throughout the primary care trust. It is discussing its future, a matter to which I shall return at the end of my remarks. We have the opportunity to combine an operation that desperately needs better managerial support and continuing reform with an organisation that has already proved its worth.
	In a bold and inspired move, Swindon borough council has appointed the chief executive of the PCT to spend four days a week running Swindon social services. It is early days, but it seems to be working extremely well. She still spends one day a week running the primary care trust, but because of the quality of the team that she has built up there is no dilution, as far as anyone can see, in the quality of the management of the primary care trust. The gains from integrating those caring services are potentially enormous. The Government have begun to recognise that—the recent White Paper on health suggests that they do, but we must move fast.
	I conclude my remarks by drawing attention to dementia care. We know that the numbers of people suffering from dementia are growing all the time. As people live longer, that is increasingly likely to affect many people in the United Kingdom. It is extremely difficult for the statutory agencies to deal with the problem. Symptoms are often not recognised early on. Typically, long-standing partners shoulder a huge burden of care, particularly in the early stages of dementia. Statutory agencies often come in quite late. There is often a great deal of confusion, which is difficult to resolve, about who should take responsibility for the care. For example, in the local hospital there are still a large number of delayed discharges, which are due to people suffering from dementia not being able to go anywhere. When elderly people are unable to look after their partners, it creates huge problems for hospital staff. As everybody knows, people with dementia need a lot of care and attention, because they go wandering, which takes up an awful lot of hospital staff's time. When I visited the hospital last month, staff told me that managing the day-to-day routine of people with dementia is still a considerable problem. People in the early stages of dementia should not really be in hospital, but there is nowhere else for them to go.
	Integrating caring services could do a great deal to provide more effective care for people with dementia, and it would also have wider benefits at the boundaries between the various caring agencies, which are often quite diffuse. I hope that the Government will move quickly to implement the recommendations, because there are huge gains to be had, and I also hope that they will examine the opportunity to make Swindon a pilot for such integrated services.
	In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on to Health Ministers the point that the huge gain offered by such integration can be achieved only if Swindon PCT remains as a stand-alone PCT and is not integrated with some of the other potential partner PCTs, which the strategic health authority is currently advocating. I hope that my hon. Friend will carry forward the message that Swindon should have a stand-alone PCT and the rapid integration of social services.

David Drew: It is a pleasure to intervene on my hon. Friend and I agree with him about domestic premises. However, does he also agree that it is especially riling that many public buildings are unnecessarily hot? I am sure that that has much to do with those of us who work in them getting ill because when we go outside, we immediately feel the worst of the cold. If the heating in public buildings could be turned down by 5o or even 10o , I am sure that we would save an enormous amount of energy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Patrick McLoughlin: I totally accept that point. I attended the debate about those problems in Westminster Hall, which the hon. Gentleman also attended, and I acknowledge the work that he has done and the time that he has spent considering this matter. I am not blaming the staff, but I am blaming the management, and obviously, the Secretary of State has blamed the management, because she sacked the chief executive. It seems that the responsibility ends with the chief executive, and not with the Ministers who were responsible, I am afraid, for ignoring the advice given by this House and instead listening to officials. There is confusion about what the two ends of the Department are up to. As I have said, many farmers have contacted me, including one, Mr. Cotterill, who said that the trouble is that there is a 31 March deadline for farm waste grants, and unless he can have a confirmed payment from the Rural Payments Agency, he cannot apply for the other grant. It seems that neither of the two sections in the Department knows what the other is doing.
	Those are some of the problems that my constituents are facing as a result of Government promises. When the time came for road resurfacing to happen, a letter arrived saying that it had been reviewed, it was not affordable and it was not going to go ahead. In the Rural Payments Agency, there is chaos. Bovine TB and other issues affecting my constituents leave them frustrated. They believe that the Government do not care about the rural environment, and if they did care, they lost interest a long time ago. Those serious problems face many ordinary people in my constituency, and I hope that the Government take measures to put them right in the not-too-distant future.

Simon Burns: Before we adjourn and leave the House for the Easter recess, I want to ask Ministers to deal with an issue that is important to my constituents. It concerns the private finance initiative scheme for the Mid Essex Hospital Services trust, based on Broomfield hospital.
	The scheme is a magnificent project worth £100 million, and has been in hand for some years. The plan is to close an old Victorian hospital in the centre of Chelmsford and to move some of the facilities to the Broomfield hospital on the outskirts of the town. That will make it an even better local hospital, with state-of-the-art facilities and equipment. We will see a rebuilt and regenerated accident and emergency department, a new pathology department, a new children's ward and improved maternity services. It is a scheme that is logical on health and patient care grounds as well as financial grounds. Everyone in the mid-Essex area supports it.
	A great deal of work has been done by trust officials, consultants and medical practitioners to put the scheme in position. We have been awaiting the final approval of the PFI scheme. We were promised that the approval would be given in October last year. October became November, November became "before Christmas", Christmas came and went and the new year came and went and still delays through bureaucracy meant that we did not get our final approval.
	We then discovered on 26 January that the Treasury had changed the ground rules and that a freeze was put on all PFI schemes subject to a reappraisal. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) told me in a written answer on 23 March:
	"We announced on 26 January 2006 that all trusts would need to confirm their capital investment plans through a reappraisal process, including where applicable private finance initiative (PFI) schemes. The aim of this process is to ensure that all schemes properly take account of the current reforms to the national health service such as choice, a movement of services"
	and so on. I hope that you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I emphasised the words "all schemes".
	It is slightly surprising that a few weeks ago Barts and the London NHS Trust, which had been subject to the same freeze and the same reappraisal, was given approval. We are awaiting the guidelines from the Government for the basis of that reappraisal. We were promised that the instructions for the guidelines would be issued to the trusts by 31 March. That is tomorrow. As of this morning, the trusts had not received it. We have to wait for the guidelines for the reappraisal before we can comply. The House should remember that that applies to all trusts and all schemes.
	About two or three weeks ago Barts managed to get its PFI scheme fast-tracked and approved. I am not the sort of evil person who would suggest that there was a correlation between that decision and the vote that was pending in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill. I know that people such as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others in the east end of London were causing the Government a degree of difficulty with regard to that vote, but I am not the sort of person who would suggest that the application was fast-tracked to try to ease the passage of the Bill, although I suspect that some less charitable hon. Friends of mine may have drawn that conclusion.
	I do not begrudge Barts approval of its PFI scheme. What concerns me is that the Broomfield scheme has not been approved, given that it has been waiting since October for approval and it is not its fault that it did not get approval before 26 January when the Treasury issued new rules. It was due to slippage and bureaucracy that the trust did not manage to get it; the Department of Health could not find the time to approve it.
	There is a knock-on effect. It will possibly take some considerable time to get that approval. I am heartened that in the same answer the Minister said:
	"Departmental officials will shortly be writing to all trusts"
	about schemes such as those I mentioned, although it looks as though they will miss that deadline, which is hardly encouraging. She continued:
	"Schemes such as the one at the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust, which are closer to financial close, will be focused on first."
	That is welcome news, although it is disappointing that the trust has been put in limbo due to the Treasury changes. However, given that the scheme was ready for approval last October, I do not understand why it has to go through all that rigmarole again.
	There is another knock-on effect—the cost of the scheme. Delay has financial implications. I asked the Minister about that but the answer was somewhat disingenuous:
	"The trust may incur some additional costs in carrying out this work, but this will be more than offset by the savings which will be realised by the reappraisal exercise."—[Official Report, 23 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 577–78W.]
	That is comforting, although most of us do not think that there is much to reappraise, because the scheme is reaching conclusion and is now awaiting approval.
	Despite the Minister's golden words, there are considerable knock-on effects, but it is a sad fact of life that I cannot disclose them to the House because the information is commercially confidential. I have a vague idea about the cost, so it is slightly disingenuous for the Minister to gloss over it in a written answer by spinning the line that the reappraisal will ultimately bring financial benefits when everybody knows that there will be none at all. I only hope that the Minister's answer was not code and that it does not really mean that there will be a decision to cut part of the scheme after the reappraisal. That would be a saving, albeit in a narrow, legal sense; the scheme would cost less, because there would be less of it.
	Will the Minister draw my concerns to the attention of the relevant Health Minister so that something can be done to fast-track a decision? The scheme is excellent and will benefit not only my constituents but those of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) who has worked as hard, if not harder, than me to persuade the Department of Health to expedite the matter.
	I want to raise another matter: an absolute scandal involving the use of stolen or false identity to avoid the consequences when people break the law, especially with regard to road traffic offences, something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) alluded. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has worked on the matter over a number of months and I pay tribute to him for his involvement.
	In my constituency, we have a particular problem: 25 Duke street. It is an innocuous-looking building in the centre of Chelmsford, but in fact it is a mass-mailing address. It is notorious with Essex and Bedford police—people from south Bedfordshire are particularly attracted to the services offered by 25 Duke street—and with Hertfordshire police, as an address that people use to register vehicles. Mr. Smith at 25 Duke street looks perfectly viable. Who is to know that it is actually a convenience address? The advantage is that Mr. Smith can speed past safety cameras, jump red lights and commit with impunity other road traffic offences caught on camera. When a letter arrives at the address setting out the offence and demanding a fine, there is no one to collect it. Officials cannot speak to Mr. Smith if they call at 25 Duke street, because it is not a residential address; it is a mailbox address.
	I have had the benefit of being shown photographs of young people joyriding past speed cameras, using the middle finger on their right hands with impunity to show what they think of the system. I have explained their way of avoiding paying any fine, getting any points and—ultimately, if they are convicted often enough—losing their licences. Like any so-called good little wheeze, most of those involved are serial offenders, and it is amazing how often people can run up speeding fines or jump red lights if they know that no one will identify them or their residence from the photograph that has been taken, or hold them to account for breaking the law.
	To my mind, there is something very wrong with such behaviour, and we should consider not simply the morality of breaking the law by speeding or whatever with impunity, but the fact that local authorities are deprived of the money that they are owed because of the offences that have been caused. That money could be ploughed back into road safety measures. I cannot understand why such things are tolerated.
	I have tabled questions to the relevant Minister in the past two weeks to ask how many road traffic offences have been caused in that manner by people who are registered at 25 Duke street. I was slighted surprised that he replied that he could not give me the information because of the Data Protection Act 1998. I was not asking for the names of the people who were committing those offences; I was simply asking for the number involved. When I asked other factual questions of that nature—not about the names of the individuals, but about the numbers of offences and the amount of money that may have been lost to the local authority and the state—I was also slightly surprised to be told that all that was covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. When I also asked what type of offence had been caused, I was also told that that was not something with which the Government could supply me.
	I am slightly surprised. If one is an avid reader of Hansard and one reads the in-depth and knowledgeable speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire—I recommend those speeches to my hon. Friends—one finds that he has been given information for his constituency, not specifically for 25 Duke street, about the offences that have been picked up on camera that have not been pursued because the address given for the vehicle is a mailing address or bogus. Why can such information be given to my hon. Friend, who is a law-abiding colleague—for example, by Bedfordshire police, I assume—whereas the Government cannot give it to me, because they say that doing so would breach the Data Protection Act 1998?
	I was horrified at the answer when I asked the relevant Minister in a written question how the Government proposed to change the law to block that loophole. I would have accepted it if they had said that it is a very difficult issue and they must consider how to draft legislation that would effectively deal with that specific problem, but not at all: they simply said that they had no plan to change the law. So the problem will continue, unless hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and others, keep pressing the Government, because it is wrong and it is a scandal. Given the irresponsibility of the individuals involved, particularly the young people—they are speeding, jumping red lights and so on—they could well threaten their own lives or injure themselves. Equally important, if not more important to some people, they could threaten the lives of or injure innocent people who become caught up in their antisocial and illegal behaviour.

David Amess: There we are. I am pushing at an open door, as far as my hon. Friend is concerned. That is wonderful news and I shall certainly make time, if not to be there in person to observe the inquiry, to read the evidence. I congratulate him on that.
	I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who was a distinguished member of the Health Committee. I have just returned from Stockholm, where the Committee is doing important work examining independent treatment centres. He will be interested to know that yesterday Committee members had a robust debate on PFI initiatives and it was felt that one was slightly more successful in having PFI programmes endorsed by the Government if one happened to be a Labour Member of Parliament. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and I felt that if one was a Conservative Member of Parliament—as we obviously are—one did not have much of a look in. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) have a very strong case as far as Broomfield hospital is concerned and I am sure that the excellent Minister who will be replying to the debate will get the right answer from the Department of Health.
	The Minister knows that I have raised on many occasions the situation of my constituent, Majid Narwaz. I am delighted to tell the House that I was at Heathrow airport last month to welcome him and his two fellow detainees back from Cairo. They had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment on absolutely trumped-up charges. They were tortured while in prison and what went on was deplorable. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office and the British embassy in Cairo for working as hard as possible to try to get my constituent released. I know that the Prime Minister takes regular holidays in Egypt, so I am sure that he took the opportunity to raise the matter with President Mubarak whenever he could.
	I am delighted that Majid has been reunited with his wife, son and parents, but not delighted about the disgraceful reception to which the three young men were treated at Heathrow airport. I am mystified about what happened because in the endless debates in which I spoke about the matter, the answers to questions that I asked, and meetings with Ministers, it was clearly indicated to me—from the Foreign Secretary down—that the British Government agreed that the three men had been treated badly. I thus naturally assumed, in all innocence, that there would be a welcome reception for them at Heathrow airport, so I took the trouble, as I was instructed to do, to ensure only that they were escorted on to the plane in Egypt because it is apparently a practice of the Egyptian authorities to release people and then re-arrest them.
	There were a huge number of people at Heathrow, many of whom were elderly relatives, but no provision had been made for the reception of the three young men. None of us can imagine what it was like to be in prison in Cairo. Never mind about the way things are in this country, for the first six months, the men were sleeping on concrete floors. They had no toilets and they were not allowed to go to the toilet—it really was "Midnight Express" stuff. However, rather than provision being made at Heathrow airport for a private reception for the three men and their close relatives, everyone was just left standing.
	The plane touched down on time, but there was such a fiasco that it took four hours before we saw the men. I made phone calls to Whitehall during that time. It was not easy to get hold of an official, but, to cut a long story short, I was told that the arrangements were not the Foreign Office's responsibility because its responsibility was to get the men on the plane at Cairo. I was also told that the arrangements were not the responsibility of the Home Office, but a police matter. However, unless I have missed the plot, the Home Office has responsibility for the police.
	Something that should have been a joyous occasion was absolutely spoiled by the arrangements. Whatever the reasons for the men being questioned, surely to goodness arrangements could have been made so that they could spend five or 10 minutes with the people whom they had not seen for four years before the questioning took place. I am more than disappointed about what happened. I hope that the testimony that the three young men will be giving the Foreign Office about torture will be taken seriously because that is entirely against the United Nations convention.
	I recently led a successful delegation to Rome and then on to the Vatican. We enjoyed a good meeting with Italian Members of Parliament in their Parliament, but, obviously, the highlight of the trip was meeting His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. As you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was delighted when, for the first time ever, the British ambassador to the Holy See happened to be a Catholic. I thought that that was a smart move. It is less than a smart move for the Foreign Office to decide to close the embassy to the Holy See and the ambassador's residence in the Vatican. This is a disgrace. These facilities have existed in the Vatican since the Lateran treaty. It is also a pretty dumb move on the part of the Government to invite the Pope to visit Britain next year and then to close our embassy to the Holy See and to take away the residence.
	The Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 174 nations and all major powers have separate missions to the Vatican and to Rome. Britain and the Vatican are currently engaged in a vital dialogue on issues such as relations with Islam, development aid to Africa—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was happy to make a big speech in the Holy See last year on aid to Africa—as well as Anglican-Catholic rapprochement. On every count I would ask the Minister to ascertain from the Foreign Office what on earth is going on.
	I have already decided to set up a forum for discussion and action on this issue, by setting up an all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See. I know that Members, quite rightly, get sick of these groups. I think that we have everything from tiddlywinks to "Coronation Street". However, I have decided to set up a forum on a serious issue. I hope that as many Members as possible of both Houses will join it and support the embassy in the Vatican as an independent entity and recognise the important international role that it performs. I cannot think of a more stupid time to close the embassy and to take away the residence than now. We have a wonderful ambassador there, Francis Campbell, and it is an insult, considering that we have the Holy Father visiting this country next year, that we should change our diplomatic relations.
	I move on to local government. The Minister knows only too well that Southend borough council has been faced with extremely tough financial decisions following the fiasco of the census. It is wonderful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that the Office for National Statistics will be independent. That seems a bit late for Southend. The 2001 census left 20,000 people off the register in Southend. That meant that the Government's grant was reduced by £7 million. I and some of my hon. Friends met fairly recently at county hall at Chelmsford to discuss these matters, which greatly affect us. I intend to mention the disgraceful thing that has happened to the Essex police force.
	At the beginning of the year, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and representatives from Southend borough council met the under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), to discuss the shortfall in local finance. We took the opportunity to raise the fact that Southend received only a 2 per cent. increase in its grant from central Government, while local councils received on average a 3 per cent. increase. We all know about the Government's intention to cap councils. I think that they have decided to cap two and have threatened another three.
	We were told at the meeting that council tax could not rise by more than 5 per cent. I am beginning to wonder what is the point of anyone standing in the council elections on 4 May. It seems that the Government tell people how much money to raise and how they should spend it. In every aspect of local government life, throughout the time that I have been a Member of this place, I have seen more and more central direction, and never more so than under this Government.
	Despite the meeting that we had with the Minister, who was extremely courteous, when the figures for the final local government assessment were released they showed a fall in the total formula grant from the Government of £34,000. Perhaps there is a lesson for my hon. Friends; do not seek meetings with Ministers because we end up getting less money than if we did not bother to meet them. [Interruption.] Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford says, it is a co-incidence that I happen to be a Conservative Member of Parliament.
	To meet the Government's restrictions and produce a balanced budget without raising council tax by more than 5 per cent., Southend borough council needs to fill a funding gap of £11 million between expected income and expected expenditure. Southend is a small unitary authority and that has caused havoc locally, on top of budget reductions of £25 million over the past five years. Local councillors have had to make painful decisions. I suppose the Government think, "Oh well, let's hope the local electorate blame Conservative local councillors." It would be a great shame if that happened, because the difficulties are entirely a result of 20,000 people being omitted from the national census.
	One critical casualty of the funding cuts has been the subsidy paid to commercial bus operators in Southend, forcing them to withdraw a number of vital services. I have been working hard with fellow councillors to restore a decent network of bus services in Southend. Unfortunately, thus far it has been difficult to find a prime sponsor without some sort of subsidy from the council, as the council does not have the money to provide a subsidy. However, the scheme that we are examining, and which I hope we can launch soon, is a taxi bus sharing system that will at least help our senior citizens get to Southend hospital and, I hope, take them to other parts of the town.
	Southend is, I repeat, a small unitary authority faced with some very large challenges, such as the rebuilding of the pier, which has burned down for the third time, and the halting of the slippage of the cliffs. The council's current financial problems are the result of the Government's failure to recognise local needs. My constituents are paying the price through cuts to local services across the town. That is unacceptable.
	I understand that the Office for National Statistics is unwilling to review the population estimate. Why? The ONS should be made to accept that it made a mistake. Any Member of Parliament would complain on behalf of their constituents if they had 20,000 people left off the funding stream.
	The next topic that I wish to raise is the matter of badgers. I recall Lord Waldegrave, as he now is, taking the Protection of Badgers Bill through the House. I spoke on Third Reading and said how much I welcomed the Bill. All these years on, I am beginning to reflect on that legislation. All the badgers in my part of Essex seem to have had a meeting and decided that they like the look of the back gardens of various terraced houses. In the small hours of the morning, they all seem to join arms and somehow—someone must leave the front door open—take over umpteen back gardens in Southend. That is causing havoc in residential areas.
	Residents of Lymington avenue in Leigh-on-Sea, for instance, have had their gardens destroyed—not just one or two, but a number of houses. Garages are beginning to collapse and the foundations of houses are being destroyed. As if that was not bad enough, two weeks ago in Queen Anne's drive and Rochester drive in Westcliff, another crowd of badgers apparently got together and moved into back gardens there. Fences have been smashed, pets attacked and property destroyed by the animals from the six badger setts identified by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that run beneath their gardens.
	I will not tire the House with details of the endless meetings that I have had with residents about getting the badgers moved. I would be so grateful if the Minister would have a word with his delightful colleague in DEFRA and try and get him to agree to a meeting with me and a few residents. I understand that since the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 came into force, only two orders have been served to try and get badgers peacefully removed.
	The residents whom I have mentioned are not farmers and landowners who are concerned about the spread of bovine TB to their livestock. They are town dwellers, and their properties have been invaded by what I can only describe as urban badgers. Some people think that badgers are cuddly, but if one goes near a badger, one might lose one's arm, so no member of the general public should try to remove a badger. So far, DEFRA has failed to come up with a tenable solution to the problem, despite the increasingly bold and violent behaviour of those animals. Urban badgers are a bit like urban foxes. When I get off the train at Mudchute and go to my little pad on the Isle of Dogs, the foxes do not run away from the commuters, although some of them have three legs. The foxes walk around like dogs, and they have become increasingly domesticated.
	An e-petition opposing badger culling as a method of preventing the spread of bovine TB has been signed by 11,350 people. Residents have advanced translocation as their preferred option, but DEFRA has rejected the application for a licence because of concerns about the spread of TB. It proposes to capture and humanely cull the badgers, but that would also involve the animals being moved away from the houses, which still raises concerns about the spread of TB.

David Amess: The badgers may have arrived by boat on the Thames estuary. My constituency is a tiny little urban area, so the situation is incredible—the badgers are on the march to Southend, West.
	DEFRA's conviction that badgers are the chief transmitters of the disease to cattle is the foundation of its proposal to introduce some sort of licensed cull. On 15 December last year, DEFRA issued a consultation paper on badger culling, seeking views on its three proposed licence-based culling options. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry on bovine TB and badger culling was undertaken to contribute to that consultation, which finished on 10 March. The evidence collated in the report shows some significant holes in the Government's proposals—the holes were identified by scientific experts and had been overlooked by DEFRA in the pre-consultation process.
	There was wide concern that not only was there not enough scientific proof to achieve consensus on any one of DEFRA's proposals, but the evidence from the badger-culling trial, which took place in 2005, and the work of the independent scientific groups on cattle TB, show that localised reactive badger culling was associated with increases of up to 25 per cent. in the number of cattle herds with TB. Incidents of confirmed TB were also higher on land neighbouring proactive areas, which is otherwise known as the edge effect. Those results help us to understand why badger culling has been an effective strategy in the past for controlling TB, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) recently admitted that 80 per cent. of the transmission of the disease is from cattle to cattle.
	There are many ways to deal with the spread of TB other than killing badgers. For instance, Professor Tim Roper, who is currently running a three-year investigation on the activities of urban badgers, has said that in the long-term
	"the only solution is vaccination",
	which goes against the view of the National Farmers Union that robust culling measures are the answer. Professor Roper is well aware of the sensitive nature of incidents involving urban badger populations, and he has mentioned the extent of the public and parliamentary demonstrations that were mounted when attempts were made to catch and destroy badgers in Saltdean in East Sussex that were undermining the foundations of several homes in the area.
	That emotional response is just a taste of what would ensue should the Government decide to follow through on a much larger culling programme. In 2004, when questioned on how to deal with the problem of urban badger populations by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who had also had considerable difficulties with badgers in residential areas—although he has probably moved them all on to Southend, West—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) responded by saying that there is no simple answer to the question.
	You can say that again, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is obvious in the extreme. If there were a simple solution, my constituents would not have suffered years of indecisive inaction from DEFRA on the removal of these badgers from Leigh-on-Sea and Westcliff. I am still awaiting a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), as to whether he will meet me and the affected residents to discuss the extent of the badger problem in Southend. I hope that such a discussion will bring home the plight of the urban dwellers, as well as rural landowners and farmers, who are affected by the issues surrounding badger culling.
	As two of my hon. Friends from Essex—my hon. Friends the Member for West Chelmsford and for Maldon and East Chelmsford—are here, let me say that I share their anger about what has happened as regards the merger of Essex police force with those of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. In Essex, we enjoy very good relations with Kent police force. However, it is completely unfair and unreasonable that its police force is allowed to stand alone while Essex's is not. My hon. Friends and I, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), have campaigned and worked extremely hard on this issue.
	One reason why we are so upset about it is that for several years we had concerns about the style of policing in Essex, many of which are well known to the House. Just at a time when we have secured the employment of an excellent chief constable whom I believe to be the best in the country and who is absolutely determined to give the general public the style of policing that we all want—in other words, when a crime is reported it is not ignored but someone turns up to investigate the situation—we find that this merger is to take place. I hope that it will be possible to have a referendum on this issue in Essex. My hon. Friends and I are absolutely determined to continue to campaign on it.
	I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as Members of Parliament we are not allowed to criticise the judiciary, and I understand that. However, I am very concerned about the inconsistencies in sentencing, particularly when someone takes another person's life. Several of us feel very strongly about that. Recently, when someone was murdered fairly locally, the two young men were caught, and one got 12 months and one got 14 months. That was the value placed on that person's life. I know that Ministers will say that the Sentencing Guidelines Council considers all these issues, but I am less than happy with the lack of consistency.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point, for Rochford and Southend, East and for Rayleigh and I remain concerned about the proposed reconfiguration of cancer services in Southend. If some of the important specialisms are removed, that will eventually lead to Southend being a less attractive place for clinicians to work in.
	British Airways used to be the best airline in the world. That is no longer the case as far as I am concerned. Lord King was a wonderful pioneer, and I am afraid that since his departure British Airways has gone down and down in my estimation. Its flights are poorly timetabled, its airliners are often not clean and tidy, some of the prices that it charges are outrageous, and it has a monopoly on some services. I understand that one or two lords serve on the board and I hope that they will read my complaint about the airline.
	I was glad that several hon. Friends mentioned abortion. Before the general election, the leaders of the three main parties said, initially in response to a magazine article, how important it was. A year later, nothing has happened. It cannot be right that we continue to abort babies up to term on the ground of a cleft palate when we have special baby care units that now save babies at 22 and a half weeks. There is no point in being in politics unless one is interested in people's lives. Parliament's continued equivocation about when life begins is unacceptable.

Theresa May: As ever with pre-recess Adjournment debates, hon. Members' contributions have ranged widely. One of the delights of my role as shadow Leader of the House is the opportunity that the debates afford to learn a great deal more about colleagues' constituencies. The challenge of my role is to do justice to the many contributions. I will do my best.
	It was interesting that several contributions referred to issues that have been raised regularly in business questions in recent weeks, when hon. Members have urged the Leader of the House to hold full debates in Government time on them. The right hon. Gentleman has resisted. The fact that so many hon. Members were willing to raise them again today shows the genuine need for a proper Government debate on matters such as the Post Office card account and the national health service.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) did the House a service by speaking about the Post Office card account. It is remarkable that the subject has been raised week in, week out, by hon. Members of all parties—Labour Members have mentioned their concerns, too—for almost the whole time that I have been shadow Leader of the House, yet the Government have not been willing to grant a debate in Government time on that important issue. Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, with its responsibility for the Post Office, and in the Department for Work and Pensions, with its responsibility for the card account, have not even made oral statements on the matter.
	The Leader of the House has consistently reiterated the Government's commitment to the Post Office. Given that its chief executive told an all-party group that removing the card account could lead to a reduction in the number of post offices from approximately 14,000 to 4,000—meaning the closure of 10,000 post offices—the Government must wake up and understand that they will face a stark decision as a result of their action. How will they back up the commitment to the Post Office, continue to support it in future, and ensure that the damaging closure of branches, which we have already experienced, does not become the threatened cull of post offices?
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned several other issues, some of which were picked up by other hon. Members, and I shall refer to them later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised serious issues concerning children. His commitment to fighting for children's interests is well known. He also mentioned such matters in the Christmas Adjournment debate. His remarks about the use of the caution for those who take indecent photographs of children raises two issues: child pornography and the treatment of paedophiles, and appropriate use by the police and the judiciary of their powers, not only to punish wrongdoing but to protect society. They have a duty to do both. We must never forget that every indecent image of a child reflects an incident of child abuse. I hope that the Government have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's observations on this serious issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also raised the issue of abortion, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I share their interest in that issue being reassessed, and the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point about the time limit for abortions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned the Government's proposals for police mergers—an issue that was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I hesitate to say that there was an Essex mafia in the Chamber today, but that did appear to be the case. Time after time, the Prime Minister has said in the Chamber that he will listen to local people's views on police mergers, so why are the Government ignoring the views not only of local people but of the police? That is happening not only in Essex but across the country. This illustrates the fact that the Government have no proper regional policy, which is a sad fact for a Labour Government. Their answer to regional policy is simply to create larger and larger bureaucratic structures, be they police forces, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts, fire authorities or ambulance services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point also mentioned overdevelopment, a problem that affects many constituencies up and down the country. We all agree that there is a demand for housing, and particularly for affordable homes, but that is not a reason for cramming development into back gardens and infill sites. Nor is the need for family homes met by the tendency to knock down family homes and replace them with flats, as I have seen happening in Shoppenhangers road in my constituency. Such a practice might meet the Deputy Prime Minister's density requirements and his target number for dwellings, but it does not provide the kind of housing that people need. It changes the character of areas, and puts unacceptable pressure on infrastructure such as roads, schools, GPs' surgeries and utilities such as water.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point might like to suggest to Essex county council that it follow the example set by Conservative-controlled Wokingham district council, which has commissioned independent consultants to assess the cost of the infrastructure needed to support the new homes that the Government require it to build as part of their target. If every council did that, we would have a clear picture of the hundreds of millions of pounds that will need to be spent on infrastructure to support the new homes that the Government are proposing to build.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who, unfortunately, is no longer in her place, mentioned her desire for two schools in her constituency, Mitcham Vale and Tamworth Manor, to be given academy status. I think that I am right in saying—I am sure that she will correct me, on reading Hansard, if I am wrong—that Mitcham Vale is the school that I knew as Eastfields when I was chairman of the local education authority in Merton. I was grateful to her for her words of gratitude for the significant contribution made to education by my noble Friend Lord Harris, who has shown an incredible commitment to improving education in south London. He has truly put his money where his mouth is.
	The hon. Lady made a number of comments about the position taken by the Conservative group on Merton council, and implied that it was blocking progress on the academies. My understanding is that, in fact, the official survey on the issue showed that people in the London borough of Merton were four to one against that development. The issue raised by Conservative councillors was that these decisions needed to be taken in full knowledge of the implications for other schools. Merton is tied in to a 25-year private finance initiative for its schools. The two schools mentioned by the hon. Lady would be allowed to withdraw from that, but that would result in implications for other schools that would need to be addressed.
	Education in Merton as a whole has undergone a considerable upheaval in recent years, with the move under a Labour authority from a three-tier system to a two-tier system. I recall from my days of chairing the education authority there that the Labour councillors were rather more in favour of three-tier education than they now appear to be. Sadly, since my time, Merton has slipped significantly down the league table of education standards in London, and that is a matter of considerable concern to the residents of that borough.
	Another topic that has been raised by several Members, as well as being raised constantly in business questions—and rightly so—is that of the NHS. As we see thousands of jobs being cut across the health service, operations cancelled, waiting times extended and trusts in deficit, the Health Secretary has said that this has been the "best year" for the health service. I sometimes wonder what Ministers in this Government spend their time doing. They certainly do not seem to spend their time going out there to find out what is happening in the services for which they have responsibility. We need to take every opportunity, as a number of Members have done today, to bring home to the Government what is happening in the health service in our constituencies, because it is not what the Government like to think is happening.
	The issue of the health service was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Uxbridge (Mr Randall) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford put in an excellent and well-argued claim for the private finance initiative in Mid Essex Hospital Services trust, centred on Broomfield hospital, to be given proper consideration by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge referred to Mount Vernon and the removal of cancer services, which, as I said to him, affects some of my constituents, too. The issue of the reconfiguration of cancer services was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. That issue is of concern across many areas of the country. In my area, cancer services are being moved from the Royal Berkshire and Battle hospital trust to the John Radcliffe in Oxford. Again, local people want to have easy access in their locality to the services that they need from the health service.
	The NHS was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and, from a different angle, by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), who gave a serious speech on the integration of social services and the health service, and spoke particularly about the needs of people with dementia. He is right that there is a real need to reassess services for those with dementia, particularly given the paucity of beds in residential care homes for people with dementia. I trust that my hon. Friend the Whip on duty will ask where the hon. Member for North Swindon is. I trust that he will read my comments in Hansard to see what has been said about his contribution.
	The issue of integrating social services with health services is particularly important and will cause considerable concern to many people, in many areas, in the coming months. Given the deficits in primary care trusts in many areas, increased pressure will be put on social services departments in local authorities. We are told by the Association of Directors of Social Services that social services budgets are already £1.76 billion underfunded. The Government therefore need to address that issue, which arises from deficits in the health service.
	Apart from Essex, the east midlands—I think that I have got my midlands right—were well represented in our debate by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire referred to my response to his speech in the Christmas Adjournment debate. Were he present, I would assure him that I always find his contributions riveting, although I suspect that the same cannot always be said for his Front Bench. He raised important points about our reactions to the problems of the environment and of climate change in particular, and talked about the need for the Government to ensure that the measures that they introduce in those areas are going to work.
	We all know, of course, that the Government have now admitted that they will not meet their own targets for greenhouse gas emissions. In business questions earlier, the Leader of the House indicated to one of my right hon. Friends that he felt that only this Government had done anything on climate change. Of course, the Government's initial success on carbon dioxide emissions, from which they are now slipping back, came about only because of decisions by the last Conservative Government to change from coal-fired power stations.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire referred to measures such as the aggregates levy, which have not always achieved what they set out to achieve. He also did something else that I thought was important: he spoke of ways in which, at a very local level, individuals could take effective action. He referred particularly to energy efficiency in homes and insulation. I pay tribute to a local authority that has done a great deal in that regard—Woking council, which is Conservative-controlled and has made significant strides in reducing emissions. It is, I suggest, a beacon for other authorities.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire raised the important issue of farm payments and the Rural Payments Agency. I consider it despicable that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to come to the House to explain what has happened in the agency, and to apologise to farmers up and down the country for the fact that, month in month out, she and her Ministers have been saying that there is no problem and that farmers will receive their payments. As we know from my right hon. Friend and others, that is not the case. Farmers are not receiving their payments, and many are extremely frustrated by the bureaucracy in the agency.
	One of my local farmers recently sent me a letter that he had received from staff at the agency telling him that he had not filled in a form which needed to be sent back. He rang up and told them that he had completed the form, and that it had been sent to them some time earlier. They said, "No, that was a letter that we sent out just in case." That is the sort of bureaucracy that really does frustrate people, and when they are not receiving payments it becomes even more frustrating.
	It was a pleasure to take a trip to the Isle of Wight during the debate, courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He raised specific issues about the operation of the national health service on the island. The overarching theme was that the Government should note that his constituency, as an island, experiences particular problems with the provision of services—not just NHS services—which are not experienced in other parts of the country. It is not as easy for people on the Isle of Wight to travel elsewhere to obtain their services. My hon. Friend has consistently raised the problem of the lack of dentists on the island, and he did so again today. The same theme has been repeated by many Members in all parts of the House during other debates and question sessions.
	What concerned me was my hon. Friend's comment that he felt that some people in the health service were being discouraged from asking him, as a Member of Parliament, to raise issues that were important to them. It is the job of Members to raise issues that are of concern in their constituencies. It may be uncomfortable for Ministers; it may even, on occasion, be uncomfortable for senior managers in public services, but they cannot and should not silence the elected representatives of the people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise his concerns despite attempts to prevent him from doing so.
	I join my hon. Friend in commending Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight council for making positive changes for the islanders. I commend it particularly for stepping in to pay the fares of those who need to cross the Solent for health service treatment, and for introducing a low bus fare for young people. Young people often tell me that they cannot afford to travel to places that they want to visit, and that it is too expensive for them to do the many things that they want to do. The new service on the Isle of Wight is very valuable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge ranged widely over a variety of topics, but began with a thoughtful comment on the situation in the Balkans, particularly Kosovo. One of his remarks really struck home, at least for me: he said that for the sake of the peace of Europe, we should not ignore developments in that area. Indeed, I suggest to my hon. Friend that the history of Europe shows that we should never ignore the Balkans.
	My hon. Friend's wish for a debate on foreign affairs was also expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although his emphasis was on Iraq and Afghanistan. Both speeches demonstrated the real need for us to engage in a proper debate in the Chamber, in Government time, on the Government's foreign policy and their foreign policy aims. That was also reflected in a comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West about the closure of the embassy to the Holy See. We need to know from the Government what they are trying to achieve with their foreign policy. They published a White Paper this week that talked of active diplomacy, but people cannot indulge in active diplomacy if they go around shutting embassies and high commissions.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also referred to the work being done by our armed forces, and I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel, both regulars and reservists, who serve abroad on our behalf.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also spoke about the Olympics, and said that the promised development of facilities should be encouraged rather than deferred because of the prospect of the Olympics. When Olympic bids were first being discussed, I understand that there were more 50 m swimming pools in Paris than in the whole of England. The new 50 m pool that my hon. Friend mentioned is therefore much needed.
	I also heartily endorse my hon. Friend's comment that we need to promote women's sport. I add my congratulations to the women's England rugby team, and I recall the success of the England women's cricket team in winning the Ashes last summer. It was noticeable during the Commonwealth games that our women athletes had rather more medal success on the track than the men. And while I am on a sporting theme, I cannot miss this opportunity to congratulate Reading football club on their promotion to the premier league.
	Several of my hon. Friends raised the serious issue of identity fraud, and the use of other people's addresses and mailbox addresses. My hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford and for Uxbridge raised that issue and paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has taken a particular interest in it. As he mentioned, he had a meeting today with the senior police officer from ACPO responsible for that issue. It has been recorded that one vehicle was responsible for 120 offences—I assume that they were speeding offences. That reveals the size of the problem. It is an interesting problem, because the Government keep telling us that identity cards will resolve it, but they will not. I only hope that the serious way in which ACPO are treating the issue, according to my hon. Friend, will be reflected in the measures taken by the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West also addressed a range of topics. He has been assiduous in his work to get his constituent released from jail in Egypt, and as he said, he was very pleased when that was achieved, although he was understandably saddened by the Government's approach to his constituent's return. I trust that the Government have noted my hon. Friend's comments about their treatment of that individual.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned local council funding, and made an interesting point about why people would wish to become councillors, given that so many decisions are now made by central Government. That is a very real problem. So many powers have been taken away from local government that many people think twice about becoming councillors. That is also why turnout in local government elections has fallen so dramatically. The restoration of powers to local government would be a real means of restoring people's interest in local democracy.
	My hon. Friend also raised the serious issue of delinquent badgers. I am tempted to say that the Government's response to such behaviour is usually to slap on an ASBO, so perhaps he should consult the police and local authority on that possibility. Despite the enjoyment that we had in listening to his description of those badgers, it is a serious issue. My hon. Friend questioned the effectiveness of culling in preventing bovine TB, but many farmers are distraught at the lack of action by the Government and the length of time that they have taken to recognise the seriousness and importance of the issue. Most of the evidence suggests that culling of some sort is what is needed.
	Turning to some of the key themes emerging from this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire gave examples of how the Government are not fulfilling their promises. That is perhaps a familiar theme, but he illustrated it well with—dare I say it?—concrete examples from his own constituency. As I know from the experience of the A404, Ministers turn up and make promises about resurfacing a road to eliminate noise, and then—lo and behold—the budget is scrapped and the scheme does not go ahead. Ministers make everybody feel happy by giving the impression that something is going to happen; then, two years down the line, the budget is scrapped and nothing happens.
	Imagine what pensioners felt about the Government's approach to last year's £200 council tax rebate. Suddenly, council tax was so high that pensioners needed support from the Government to help them pay for it. This year council tax is rising even further, so one assumes that the problems experienced by the many elderly people who had to be helped last year are even worse. What are the Government doing? They are not providing a single penny. The Deputy Leader of the House will probably say that in a pre-election year, all Governments try to present their best face to the electorate, which is of course true, but the £200 rebate was the most blatant and cynical election bribe we have ever seen.
	However, that fits in with the theme of this debate: the Government's failure to deliver, when they are taxing people so highly that the Minister with responsibility for higher education has told us that people have been taxed to the hilt and cannot take any more. The Government are out of touch. The Health Secretary considers this the best year ever for the health service, yet thousands of jobs have been cut and trusts up and down the country have deficits of hundreds of millions of pounds. So many promises, so much money spent, so little achieved. It is a sad fact that this Government, who have two Prime Ministers and are internal disarray, are in no position to give the Easter message of new birth and hope for the future. The Government's record was summed up by Sir Derek Wanless on Radio 4 this morning when he said:
	"Less has been achieved than might have been achieved".
	Optimism and hope for the future can be found not on the Labour Benches, but on the Conservative Benches.
	I finish by echoing what I, and the Leader of the House, said at business questions earlier today. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, for taking on extra responsibilities in Mr. Speaker's absence. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, for taking on those extra responsibilities in turn. You have all stepped into the breach, and I wish you, all Members of this House and all its staff and Officers a very happy Easter.

Nigel Griffiths: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Labour controlled the council the average council tax was £810, whereas now under the Liberal Democrats it is £1,130. So I advise people to listen to the advice of the Labour leader on the council and vote for him in the council elections.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the serious issue of the availability of herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that local trusts must not refuse to fund herceptin for women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer solely on cost. They need to take account of the complete range of factors before they make such a decision while the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is carrying out an appraisal of this unapproved drug using the fast-track process. No one has successfully challenged that approach in court, although an appeal is pending.
	I have a copy of the letter that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), wrote to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. She spelt out clearly to him in paragraph 5 relating to his constituent that
	"It is down to individual clinicians to decide whether it is suitable to prescribe a specific drug. The clinician will make this decision after discussions with the patient about the potential risks and taking into account his or her medical history . . . As the Secretary of State re-confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement on 1 March, PCTs should not refuse to fund Herceptin solely on the grounds of its cost. PCTs should not rule out treatments on principle but should consider individual circumstances."

Nigel Griffiths: I shall make some progress. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman directly in a minute, I hope.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the position in Iraq. There is much in Iraq that has improved. There has been an underpinning move to democracy, two successful elections and a constitutional referendum. The council of representatives met a fortnight ago. It was elected by 70 per cent. of the electorate. It is good that 4 million more Iraqis have access to potable water than before, and that 9.6 million of them have access to a sewerage system. There were no sewerage or working waste water plants operating before the intervention. That was another legacy of 20 years of Saddam's warmongering, brutal repression, mismanagement and chronic underinvestment. The Secretary of State for Defence does not hesitate to keep the House apprised of developments in Iraq as and when necessary.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) made a thoughtful contribution. He stressed the vital need for the closest co-operation between social services departments and PCTs. I welcome the offer that he made to look at Swindon hosting a pilot project. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responds to him on it.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised several issues, including police reorganisation, to which other Members also referred. No one doubts the need for modern, effective police forces to tackle terrorism and crime—the drug dealing and the Mr. Bigs. The current 43-force structure is 30 years old. I reject the claim that there is no need for change, as does the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which states:
	"The 43-force structure is no longer fit for purpose."
	Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumbria and Durham have drawn up voluntary merger proposals. In February, Durham's chief constable, Jon Stoddart praised the review, saying:
	"From a professional policing point of view there has only ever been one option—a single strategic force".
	Last week, the Home Secretary announced four merger proposals, for the south-east, the eastern region, the east midlands and Yorkshire and Humber. A statutory four-month consultation period is under way and HMIC has identified savings that will, it states, dwarf any initial start-up costs. Of course, we have to ensure that disruption is minimised in carrying out those proposals.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point raised concerns about the Thames Gateway initiative. We recognise the importance of infrastructure for housing and job growth. We support the principles of the sustainable development communities plan, which is why there is £6 billion-worth of Government investment covering the past three years and the next financial year. Although he and other Members attack demands for new homes, his constituents and others want local housing for their sons and daughters. When people's marriages break up, they want to be housed locally near their jobs and families. They can hardly be expected to move hundreds of miles away—from Castle Point to Castle Douglas. The Government, the hon. Gentleman, as a local MP, and his local authorities will have to reach an agreement on a sustainable number of homes to meet that need. Otherwise, he will have to face his constituents and tell them why they have to stay in marriages in unsustainable conditions, or why their grown-up children will have to continue to live at home.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) focused on two main issues. He mentioned the lower rates of business tax, which I warmly endorse. The whole House supports the Chancellor's decision to reduce corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent., small business tax from 23 to 19 per cent., and capital gains tax on long-term assets from 40p to 10p in the pound. As my hon. Friend said, he welcomes what has been done for his local businesses, some of which are among the 554,000 new businesses that have been created.
	My hon. Friend stressed the need for energy conservation, a cause that he has championed for much of his working life. He will share my pride that 2 million more homes have been insulated over the past eight years and that 250,000 homes will receive subsidies for insulation within two years. He mentioned his support for the £50 million allocated for microgeneration technologies, which will help 25,000 homes and businesses to generate their own renewable energy, and for the far bigger sum—£1 billion—for a new energy and environmental research institute.
	The Chancellor's fiscal policies have contributed to all those measures, and include the climate change levy, which I have yet to hear the Opposition endorse. None the less, my hon. Friend presses the Government to do more and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will heed his call.
	It was a pleasure to hear the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire. Of course, I welcome him to his fairly new elevation to the post of Government Chief Whip—[Hon. Members: "He will be soon!"]—Opposition Chief Whip. I thought that, if anyone broke the mould of silence falling on Chief Whips, he would do so, and he has not disappointed me.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the resurfacing of the A50. I am aware, as he said, that he has been in regular contact with the Department for Transport on the issue, and he quoted from his correspondence. For reasons of which I think he is aware, the Department decided not to continue with that programme of replacing lengths of road surface with concrete in advance of normal maintenance requirements, primarily because of the pressure on budgets and for safety reasons. The Department must ensure that there is adequate funding for routine surface renewal schemes. I appreciate the disappointment felt by the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. However, when the A50 requires maintenance and resurfacing, I am assured that a quieter surface will be used as a matter of course.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned his regret at the overturning of a stop order on a local quarry. Again, I will ensure that his observations are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
	On farming payments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear her anger that the payment procedure was not being honoured in the way she wished. When the chief executive reported to her that, on his latest reassessment, he and his agency would be unable to make the payments, she took the decision that that was wholly unacceptable. She took the action that the House would expect her to take. The chief executive was removed, and the leadership has been strengthened to find out whether the payments can be made within an acceptable time. She made her views very clear that the situation was quite unacceptable and recognised the problems. It is to be hoped that those payments will be made as quickly as possible.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a thoughtful contribution about providing health care for a population of about 130,000, especially at a time when previously unimaginable advances have been made in medical technology. That involves massive investment in state-of-the-art technology and ever-larger teams of the highest skilled people to carry out the treatments and operations that are now necessary. Speaking from my constituency experience, even with a population of 500,000, problems can be generated in getting the critical mass. In fact, I come from a rural area, so I know better than many that the issue is how we ensure that the critical mass is achieved and the proper resources provided. The hon. Gentleman argued that more money should be put into the issue. It is a common cause, and more money has indeed been devoted to health care, but we now need to work in a bipartisan or tri-partisan way to consider the problems of such areas, including how close to home people's needs must be serviced.
	To echo the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, there is no reason why Members of Parliament should not take up any issue with the chief executive and chairman of their local strategic health authority. In my 19 years as a Member of Parliament and in the seven years before that, when I served on a local health council, I have met chairmen and chief executives of health authorities of every and no political complexion. I have always told them to be plain with me, and still do, and I expect them to focus on the interests of the people they serve—in the case of chairs, mostly in a voluntary capacity; in the case of chief executives, I hope as consummate professionals. I know that the whole House will urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight's local health officials to be frank and honest with him since he is quite clearly very capable of articulating their concerns at the highest level.
	The hon. Gentleman lamented the loss of 200 staff. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to know the details of that because thousands of nurses and doctors have been provided in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority area in the past nine years and it is important that it balances its budgets as others have done. It is one of the sad facts in relation to the present financial outlook of the minority of health authorities that some 50 per cent. of the overspending is accounted for by only 6 per cent. of them. I urge them to look at health authorities that are able to bring in their services on budget, at a very high level, meeting local demands.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of dentists. Not only have we increased investment in dental schools and dental education by more than 30 per cent., to ensure even better value for money we have increased the number of dental students by 34 per cent. The facts about the number of dentists are also clear. There are 4,600 more dentists now practising in the general dental service and the personal dental service than in 1997. Adult registrations with dentists fell by 1 million between 1992 and 1997, but under this Government they have increased by 1 million. The demand is ever greater and the budget to meet it is great too. Some 17.7 million people are now on the lists of our dentists. It is with some regret that I tell the House that the trend in the number of NHS dentists reducing their commitment to the NHS—it started well before this Government came into power, as those dentists did more and more private work—has not been reversed.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome might be interested to know that the money for his local health service—I think that he mentioned Bath—and his local hospital, in terms of the £1.3 million for the purchase of land and for fees, is secure. There is some £12 million for initial funding, as well. I gather that the full business case is already being prepared.
	I join the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) in congratulating the women's rugby team on achieving the grand slam—a terrific achievement. He also raised the issue of Kosovo. As the House will know, I chaired the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal, which was charged by the UN with rebuilding some 8,000 homes in Kosovo. Although I completely endorse what he says about the criminal wilful damage to churches and monasteries, I know that he will join me in condemning the damage that I saw, when I went in shortly after Kosovo was liberated, to the mosques and other buildings, too. I also know that he will want to praise and get an up-to-date report from David Blunt, who is our Foreign Office highest representative there, and his colleagues on the present position. I hope that we can ensure that a copy of those comments is passed to him. We want to ensure that the intervention, which I am convinced saved 250,000 lives, in contrast to the failure to intervene in the previous decade, allows the country to be rebuilt properly.
	The hon. Member also spoke about the North West London strategic health authority. He asked for extra money and raised the plight of his cancer hospital. My colleagues will read his comments with concern and interest.

Andy Burnham: No, I would not. I do not believe that people would accept that. Even for someone often accused, as I am, of not having regard for such matters, it would raise substantial civil liberties implications. On that basis, I would rule it out categorically. As to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises about the effectiveness of biometrics, I do not accept that that is the case. I do not know whether he has travelled to the United States recently, but it has a large-scale immigration system that uses biometric information extremely successfully. His assertion that there is no evidence of external biometrics providing a higher standard of identification in travel documents is therefore wrong.
	Like the hon. Member for Gravesham, I recognise that the national DNA database is an extremely powerful tool. It therefore follows that it needs to be used carefully and proportionately, with the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I am pleased that he has secured this debate and that we are here today. I want to make a commitment to him and the House that that scrutiny will continue, and it is important that it does. He is right to say that it is important to explain the benefits of the national DNA database so that we can continue to build a consensus in support of it. It is right that the debate should be taken forward with openness, not secrecy. In that way, we will maintain and secure confidence.
	As the hon. Member for Gravesham rightly says, the database is achieving some extraordinary public benefits by solving crime, especially some appalling crimes that have remained unsolved for many years. It rightly commands solid and sound public support, and in my view the majority of our constituents support it and want it used to the fullest possible extent. I want to give some examples of that success. It is important to conduct the debate, and explain the benefits, without resorting to language likely to raise fear or alarm unnecessarily among the public. In certain quarters, the database is viewed as something necessarily to be feared. I want to deal with that directly.
	There is no material disadvantage or cost to the individual simply from being on the national DNA database—it is not a criminal record. A cost arises only if a further crime is committed. Even before the advent of DNA technologies, the police always retained information relevant to an investigation that they had carried out, even if that investigation did not subsequently proceed to charge or trial. Those decisions have always properly been at the discretion of the police and, ultimately, of the chief constable of a force. I would not want that to change. It is right, however, that processes are put in place to ensure that people can question the legitimacy of their data being held on the DNA database. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently been working on guidelines for those procedures.
	We can also consider other safeguards, such as the proviso that DNA is only taken when an individual is arrested in connection with a recordable offence. The hon. Member for Gravesham suggested a couple of times, although I do not think that he sought to be misleading, that someone arrested for a road traffic offence could have their DNA taken. That would only occur in the case of a more serious road traffic offence. It would not happen, for example, if someone had not been wearing their seatbelt, but in cases of serious offences such as failing to provide a specimen of breath when requested or tampering with a vehicle. It is important to put that on the record.
	A further safeguard is that access to the database is strictly limited. Only a small number of people—less than 30—have direct access to the database. People cannot access the database from police stations all over the country. That is an important safeguard, which people want to hear about. The individuals who can access the database are highly vetted and security-cleared. The statutory purposes of the database are also clearly defined: those relating to the detection and prevention of crime, with the extension to the identification of dead bodies, following the awful events of the tsunami.
	Let me give some background to the debate. The DNA database has been in existence for 10 years. It was begun under the Conservative party, and was set up as a police intelligence database to hold DNA profiles from persons charged with, reported for or convicted of a recordable offence. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of DNA profiles from sampled individuals grew slowly from zero to approximately 750,000. In the late 1990s there were around 21,000 DNA matches per year, providing the police with leads on the possible identity of offenders.
	It was clear that DNA was having an impact on serious crime, and on high-volume crimes such as burglary and vehicle crime. That illustrated the potential value of the database. In 1999, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced plans to increase the use of DNA technology through the setting up of the DNA expansion programme, and significant investment—some £300 million—was allocated to the programme. Its aims were to expand the database to hold profiles of all active criminals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that—and to take DNA materials from more crime scenes and load them on the database. The database holds both types of sample. We believe that the programme has achieved its aims, and that is borne out by the recent progress report on it.
	It is impossible to be precise, but we believe that the database now covers a large proportion of the criminally active population. At the end of February 2006, it held more than 3.5 million profiles from sampled individuals. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 2.25 million persons were sampled and their profiles were added to the database. That is treble the number of profiles loaded in the previous five years, between 1995 and 2000.
	The database is a key police intelligence tool, helping to identify offenders more quickly, eliminate suspected offenders earlier in investigations, make earlier arrests and secure more convictions. Those are very important public policy objectives, of which I am sure Members in all parts of the House approve. The database provides criminal leads for police investigations.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the forecast growth of the database. Forecasts indicate that it is likely to expand to 4.25 million profiles by 2007–08 as a result of the sampling of arrested persons and newcomers to crime. It is not the case that anyone added to it is "innocent". The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that, but it was possible to interpret what he said in that way. There are currently more than 6.2 million records on the national fingerprint database. That is to be expected, as the national fingerprint collection has existed for far longer—since the first half of the last century.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of a universal DNA database, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) strayed into the same territory, wondering whether DNA should be collected more generally. It remains our view that the national DNA database is an intelligence database for police service use, to assist in the fight against crime. That is clearly laid out in the statutory purpose of the database. The Government have no plans—I repeat, no plans—to introduce a universal compulsory, or voluntary, national DNA database, or to seek to obtain DNA samples from the entire population. Nor it is our intention to build the database by stealth. It is our intention simply that the samples will continue to match arrests made and crimes committed.
	We believe that seeking to obtain DNA samples from the entire population would raise significant practical and ethical issues, and there would need to be a national debate on it. I do not think that the country is ready to hold that debate, as may be shown by our long debates on identity cards. I do not believe that we have reached the point at which people would accept such a step. I do believe, however, that we have reached the point at which people accept the existence of the national DNA database for the policing and crime detection purposes that I have described—as long as there is proper scrutiny and debate, and testing of issues around the edges of the debate, notably the retention of samples from arrestees.
	Following an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police have been able to retain DNA and fingerprints taken from persons who have been charged with, but not convicted of, recordable offences, and detained in police stations. DNA samples retained under PACE may be used only for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence, the conduct of a prosecution or, since April 2005, the identification of a deceased person.
	The Government firmly believe that the 2001 amendment is both proportionate and justified in the interests of preventing and detecting crime. That view was supported by a Judicial Committee of the other place in the case of R v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire in July 2004. The case was a rape case, in which DNA evidence had been ruled inadmissible, even though it established the identity of one of those involved. Following that case, the House debated fully the issue of whether the rule needed to be changed, and whether the police required greater flexibility to retain DNA samples.
	Since May 2001, some 200,000 DNA samples have been retained that would previously have had to be destroyed. From those, approximately 8,500 profiles of individuals have been linked with crime scene stains, involving nearly 14,000 offences. Those offences include 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 sexual offences and 119 aggravated burglaries. I urge those who campaign against the DNA database to reflect on those figures, which are evidence of substantial public benefit for the victims and their families of the policy that was introduced on the retention of DNA samples.
	In 2003, following representations from the police service, new powers were introduced enabling the police to take DNA and fingerprints from persons who have been arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station. The great majority of profiles on the database are from individuals who have been either convicted of or charged with an offence. As at early December 2005, only around 125,000 profiles related to persons who had been arrested but no further action had been taken in the case.
	It is a fact that the police arrest more people than they charge, and we do of course accept that broadening police powers in that way has civil liberties implications. The Government appreciate that some people may be concerned about building a larger DNA database, particularly where it relates to arrested people who have not been proceeded against for an offence. Although we recognise all those concerns, we have nevertheless concluded that any intrusion on personal liberty is both necessary and proportionate to the benefits for victims of crime and society generally in terms of detecting crime and protecting the public against criminals.
	Those benefits are evidenced by the fact that since April 2004, sampling persons who have been arrested but not proceeded against has yielded a match with a crime scene stain in more than 3,000 offences, including 37 murders, 16 attempted murders, 90 rapes and 1,136 burglary offences. Those are links that might never have been made had the police not been given powers to take and retain DNA samples on arrest.
	Questions have been raised about the under-18s and the database. Around 740,000 of the profiles on the database relate to young persons who were under 18 at the time the sample was taken. Many of those persons are now over 18. As at 13 December 2005, there were around 377,000 under-18s on the database. Young persons under the age of 18 who have their DNA on the database have been portrayed in some sections of the media as innocent children. We need to recognise that, sadly, that is not always the case. Under-18s make up approximately 23 per cent. of all arrests, and thus a comparable proportion of young persons' profiles on the database should not be unexpected. Home Office statistics published in 2003 indicate that the peak rate of offending is among young persons.
	Many offences including burglaries, robberies, criminal damage and drugs offences are committed by under-18s, causing great distress to their victims. Some young people go on to commit very serious offences. For example, a case was reported last week of a 14-year-old who had raped four children of primary school age. It is crucial that the police have access to DNA intelligence to ensure that young people who commit such crimes are detected as soon as possible, for the sake of their victims and in order to prevent any further such crimes.
	That said, there will inevitably be some instances where entirely innocent young people are arrested and sampled in a case of mistaken identity, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. In such cases, chief officers have the operational discretion to remove the DNA profile from the database and to destroy the DNA sample. Recent guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers has laid down how the process can be pursued. Members acting on their constituents' behalf can of course follow that process, details of which have been placed in the Library of the House.
	Let me give some examples of the benefits of a national DNA database. Almost every week the media report on the outcome of criminal cases in which DNA-matched intelligence has been used and relied on. On average, the database provides police with 3,000 intelligence matches a month, thereby enhancing their capability to detect crime; indeed, some 40,000 such crimes were detected in 2004–05. The hon. Gentleman gave figures for cases in his own region during Operation Advance 1, which, as he may know, was a nationwide review of cold cases. For example, in Tunbridge Wells in 1989, an 18-year-old woman was threatened with a shotgun and raped, and only when the offender was arrested in 2004—when Kent police began reviewing undetected serious crimes using modern DNA techniques—did he eventually plead guilty to rape and false imprisonment. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Other cases in the hon. Gentleman's region include the sentencing to life of a man found guilty of raping two students at knifepoint, 16 years after those offences were committed.
	A powerful feature of the database is that if someone who committed a serious offence many years ago commits a more trivial one some years later, that requires the taking of a DNA sample and the link between the two offences is triggered. The ability to link a range of criminal behaviour back to serious crimes is very important, and the two cases from the hon. Gentleman's region that I mentioned are powerful examples of how the database can uncover such links. Members may have read this week of "Wearside Jack", the hoaxer who disrupted the hunt for the Yorkshire ripper. The man in question, who has since been arrested and convicted, had a sample taken in 2001 when he was arrested and cautioned for being drunk and disorderly. A cold case review in 2005 of the original hoax case retrieved DNA from the seal on one of the envelopes used to send the hoax letters. That DNA matched the later sample.
	Amazing stories are emerging in our press almost weekly, and when people read them they will immediately appreciate the power and benefit of the national DNA database. The cases are, at times, incredibly moving, and the victims are given a chance to regain their lives as they perhaps thought that they never would. Following a successful prosecution in a serious case, a senior investigating officer involved in the cold case review said the following:
	"We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn't even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either".
	As Members will appreciate, the ability to make connections between cases in various parts of the country is a very powerful policing tool.
	I could regale hon. Members with plenty more statistics and stories, but I do not want to keep them from leaving for their Easter break. However, I believe that the database is an intriguing subject, and that the House should take a close interest in it. I am ready to help it to do so, as I want the debate to be open and conducted in a spirit of explanation rather than the sort of scaremongering that would be a disservice to the public. The hon. Member for Gravesham has certainly shown the proper spirit in his approach to this debate.
	I assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to build a database by stealth, or to amass more and more information for some ulterior purpose. We want that information to help the police—whom we pay to protect us—to do their job better. In that way, victims will get more justice, and the population as a whole will feel more secure. Apart from aiding the identification of deceased bodies—I am sure that no hon. Members will disagree with that use of the information—that is the only reason for compiling the DNA database.
	The statutory purposes behind the database mean that people can be confident that it is being taken forward in the right way. From his remarks, I took it that the hon. Member for Gravesham supported the principles underlying the database's use, but that he wanted confirmation of its openness and accountability. That is a perfectly legitimate request, and I am happy to have been able to respond. I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and in wishing the House a happy Easter break, I also hope that more parliamentary time can be given to this important matter in the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock.